Philosophy Practice Exam

[Aurelian]

Attached.

Better late than never, right...? Haha. Sorry it's taken so long (especially to those who I told several weeks ago I would put it up in "a few days"... Wooppssss). I've been rather busy (slash lazy).

If you're going to print it, I warn that the picture may not come out well if you aren't printing in colour.

Good luck everyone!

[mel_77777]

Thanks for the exam.
Did you make this exam yourself?
Maybe i havent done enough study but to me that exam looks a tad on the difficult side.

[Ghost!]

As usual, I'm in awe of the high quality of your work Aurelian. Thank you very much!

Thanks for the exam.
Did you make this exam yourself?
Maybe i havent done enough study but to me that exam looks a tad on the difficult side.

Maybe I've been studying too hard, these questions don't seem overly difficult to me. They really emulate VCAA questions.

Aurelian, do you have sample answers prepared? Or should I post a few when I finish sometime this weekend? Actually, that could be a good exercise, have everyone pitch in answers and other critique them.

[mel_77777]

Maybe I've been studying too hard, these questions don't seem overly difficult to me. They really emulate VCAA questions.

Aurelian, do you have sample answers prepared? Or should I post a few when I finish sometime this weekend? Actually, that could be a good exercise, have everyone pitch in answers and other critique them.

I think that's a great idea, i'm going to do this exam a little later today, it would be nice to see other peoples answers to these as well.

[Aurelian]

@ mel; Yes I did write this, however I would not say it is on the difficult side (unfortunately!). I would agree with Ghost's assessment that these questions closely emulate the kind of things VCAA will ask.

@ Ghost; I do have my sample answers lying around somewhere, but they're handwritten... I probably don't have time to type them all up on account of being busy with other exams, but if there's any particular question(s) you would like me to post, let me know.

[Menang]

Thanks for the exam Aurelian! I'm doing it right now and I agree, it's very close to VCAA exams.

[Ghost!]

Okay I guess I'll kick off a bit of question and answer! We'll start with Section C

Question 1. Outline and evaluate Descartes' argument for the conclusion that he knows his mind better than he knows his body.

Descartes holds the belief that he cannot truly know his body, as all empirical evidence cannot be trusted as the senses are, for the most part, unreliable. However he does know that he thinks, as he is currently doing so as he produces his meditations. As this property cannot be separated from him, he is essentially a thinking thing. There are however several issues with this hypothesis, particularly Descartes' habit to jump to conclusions. is he really justified in saying 'I' am a thinking thing? It would make more sense to state that all he truly knows is that thought exists, as he is yet to provide any proof for the existence of 'I'.


Thoughts! Other answers! Discussion! Let's go team exam is Monday

[ProtonStar]

Had a look at your Philosophy exam Aurelian; looks good! (I can't really answer the questions since I haven't done 3&4 )
I'm so shattered that my school didn't run 3&4 Philosophy, it was one of my favourite subjects

[Aurelian]

Question 1. Outline and evaluate Descartes' argument for the conclusion that he knows his mind better than he knows his body.

Descartes holds the belief that he cannot truly know his body, as all empirical evidence cannot be trusted as the senses are, for the most part, unreliable. However he does know that he thinks, as he is currently doing so as he produces his meditations. As this property cannot be separated from him, he is essentially a thinking thing. Strictly speaking, this is not the argument for the conclusion outlined in the question. It is actually the wax argument which provides the above conclusion. There are however several issues with this hypothesis, particularly Descartes' habit to jump to conclusions This can be tighter. Don't waste a sentence saying there are problems with Descartes' argument - just jump right in. "However, it is questionable whether [specific point of address] . is he really justified in saying 'I' am a thinking thing? It would make more sense to state that all he truly knows is that thought exists, as he is yet to provide any proof for the existence of 'I'. You haven't justified this; this is merely assertion. Why does it make more sense to state that all he truly knows is that thought exists? Your justification is what determines whether or not you get full marks for a question. You need to exhibit that you've really thought about the issue at hand and have good reasons for any opinions you have. In addition, and this is more philosophically speaking than from an exam perspective (I'm sure examiners wouldn't mind), but this is a pretty poor evaluation anyway, and in my opinion displays a misunderstanding of the crux of Descartes' position...

Comments in the quote. Sorry if they sound harsh/blunt, they're not meant to haha. Just trying to help =)

[krith]

Thanks so much for the exam! I went over it a couple of hours ago and here are my answers to Section A (Can't be bothered typing out the rest yet ) Feel free to rip them apart if need be

SECTION A:

Question 1. What importance does Callicles afford to philosophy with regards to the good life? Do you agree?

Callicles asserts that philosophy can prove a cultured mind for the youth, but to pursue it into adulthood is embarrassing and leaves one completely out of touch with human nature. It condemns a man to a low estimation of his own worth and potential as he avoids the thick of the agora where man earns distinction. Furthermore, a philosophy is rendered incapable of defending himself against a corrupt and unprincipled prosecutor, foreshadowing Socrates’ own trial and death. I do not agree with this narrow portrayal of philosophy for as Socrates argues, the contemplative life is able to elevate one morally as it provides one with universal truths dissimilar to sophistry which is only a form of flattery interested in the mere gratification of the audience.

Question 2. Outline and evaluate Aristotle’s argument for the conclusion that mankind has a function and that it is to reason.

Aristotle argues that each organism has a biological function unique to that special and the good life is attainable if we exercise out unique function in accordance with virtue and excellence over the period of our lives. The plant has the nutritive soul and therefore its function is to feel and grow. Animals possess the perceptive soul and hence their function is to feed, grow, perceive, move and reproduce. A human’s function therefore, according to Aristotle, is to use their rational principle. This assessment is, however, problematic. Firstly, Aristotle doesn’t claim who provided one with their function for he does not believe in a God or any other higher power. Secondly, his argument rests on the mere assumption that we even possess a function. Who is to say humans possess an instrumental purpose such as a knife, which is to cut well? Finally, research into chimpanzees begs the question as to whether reason can be uniquely human as these animals express the ability to communicate and apply reason to the completion of particular tasks.

Question 3. What is Weil’s view of the role of society in enabling the good life? What are her reasons for this view?

Weil regards society as playing a large role in the fulfilment in an individual’s ability to obtain the good life. She places great reliance on social collectivities who are able to nurture and satisfy an individual’s spiritual needs and obtain a balance between each antithetical pair: her mean. This dependence on society is further expressed through her plant analogy as she argues that one must be firmly rooted in a stable and healthy environment. Those views are greatly influenced by her own experiences in France and of the instability that ensues as the result of war and foreign invasions.

[Aurelian]

SECTION A:

Question 1. What importance does Callicles afford to philosophy with regards to the good life? Do you agree?

Callicles asserts that philosophy can prove a cultured mind for the youth, but to pursue it into adulthood is embarrassing and leaves one completely out of touch with human nature. It condemns a man to a low estimation of his own worth and potential as he avoids the thick of the agora where man earns distinction. Furthermore, a philosophy is rendered incapable of defending himself against a corrupt and unprincipled prosecutor, foreshadowing Socrates’ own trial and death. I do not agree with this narrow portrayal of philosophy for as Socrates argues, the contemplative life is able to elevate one morally as it provides one with universal truths dissimilar to sophistry which is only a form of flattery interested in the mere gratification of the audience. This is pretty good. But to secure full marks I would advise another sentence or two of evaluation. Put an example in there to solidify your argument and bring the reasoning to a close with an explicit conclusion, e.g. "hence it is clear that philosophy plays an important role in the good life as...

Question 2. Outline and evaluate Aristotle’s argument for the conclusion that mankind has a function and that it is to reason.

Aristotle argues that each organism has a biological Cut biological function unique to that special and the good life is attainable if we exercise out unique function in accordance with virtue and excellence over the period of our lives. The plant has the nutritive soul and therefore its function is to feel and grow. Animals possess the perceptive soul and hence their function is to feed, grow, perceive, move and reproduce. A human’s function therefore, according to Aristotle, is to use their rational principle. This can be tightened up. You need to work through Aristotle's reasoning more properly; it is *because* the first two things are shared by plants/animals respectively, and because our function is unique to us, that the function for humans *must* be the third thingThis assessment is, however, problematic. Firstly, Aristotle doesn’t claim who provided one with their function for he does not believe in a God or any other higher power This needs furthering - what is the implication of A's failure to do so on the validity of his argument?. Secondly, his argument rests on the mere assumption that we even possess a function. Who is to say humans possess an instrumental purpose such as a knife, which is to cut well? Don't frame evaluations as rhetorical question. Again, this needs linking back to implications for A Finally, research into chimpanzees begs the question as to whether reason can be uniquely human as these animals express the ability to communicate and apply reason to the completion of particular tasks. V. good series of evaluations - always include more than one. This is a solid response.

Question 3. What is Weil’s view of the role of society in enabling the good life? What are her reasons for this view?

Weil regards society as playing a large role in the fulfilment in an individual’s ability to obtain the good life. She places great reliance on social collectivities who are able to nurture and satisfy an individual’s spiritual needs and obtain a balance between each antithetical pair: her mean. This dependence on society is further expressed through her plant analogy as she argues that one must be firmly rooted in a stable and healthy environment. Those views are greatly influenced by her own experiences in France and of the instability that ensues as the result of war and foreign invasions. I can't comment too much on this, as I didn't do Weil, but (lol) where it says "what are her reasons for this view", it doesn't mean what has influenced her to believe such things It means what is her philosophical justification